This was unnecessary. First of all, the reasons that have motivated most skeptics who have thought about the matter to reject the LOV or LTV -- like me -- are not that it is an "unscientific notion" that cannot be "falsified," but that it is a bad scientific notion whose time is up bewcause it has not proved to have any explanatory value or theoretical use, other than employing a shrinking group of true believers increasingly arcane defenses. Second, only the crudest and most mechanical sort of Popperianism (not Popper's) would proceed proposition by propostion through a body of theory, testing the "scientificity" of each independently of others, so this would be a really dumb objection if somewone were to make it. Third, no one has. Everyone involved, except Ian, who rejects the vulgar interpretation of Popperianism but thinks is it is really important to engage with straw men, acknowledges that there is no alternative to evaluating theories as wholes, which means that it's no prob from a demarcation criterion pov if a bit of a theory that does important work isn't falsifiable on its own. If it's not falsifiable in the context of the wholed theory, as with notions like "Oedipus complex," that's a problem.
jks --- Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can I point out that the marxian law of value, > probably cannot be > falsified, but may be "true". > > The only empirical study I know about it is by Paul > Cockshott and Allin > Cottrell showing that it could fit with > macroeconomic data, I think for > Scotland if I recall correctly. > > Chris Burford __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
